Smt. Saroj Singh vs Learned Small Causes Court And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3793 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 10
 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2048 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Smt. Saroj Singh
 
Respondent :- Learned Small Causes Court And Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Neelabh Srivastava,Sumit Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Kshitij Shailendra,Arvind Srivastava,Pratik J. Nagar
 

 
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

The petitioner has preferred the present petition, inter-alia, with the following prayers:-

"a) To set aside the impugned order dated 05.03.2019 (annexure no.9) passed by the respondent no.1 in application dated 06.02.2019 under Order - 1 Rule -10 and u/s 151 of C.P.C.

b) The suitable direction has been issued to the Respondent No.2/plaintiff to not disturb the peaceful possession of the Petitioner/Defendant over the property-in-question bearing No.J-11/68 Mohalla Nai Basti, Ishwargangi, Halka-Jaitpura, District Varanasi which is subject matter of present petition arising out of Original Suit No.1032 of 2010 (Smt. Chando Devi Vs. Chandrabhushan Singh) and further proceeding in the said suit may also be stayed which is pending before the Learned Small Causes Court Varanasi.

c) The suitable direction has been issued to the trial court to decide the application dated 06.02.2019 under Order 1 Rule 1 10 and u/s 151 of C.P.C. as fresh after affording the proper opportunity of hearing to the party concern as accordance with law, within some stipulated in period."

From the perusal of record it appears that in Original Suit No.1032 of 2010 filed by Smt. Chando Devi against Chandrabhushan Singh, an application for impleadment was filed under Order 1 Rule 10 and u/s 151 C.P.C. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 05.03.2019.

Today when the matter was taken up, it is argued by Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent that the suit itself has already been decreed by the Trial Court on 16.12.2020. In view of the same, it is argued that no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

On the other hand, it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the order dated 26.03.2019 passed by the this Court by which the impugned order dated 05.03.2019 was stayed and the Trial Court was directed not to proceed further with the suit, the suit has been decided. In case the petitioner is aggrieved against the aforesaid order, he is free to avail the remedy available to him in law. So far as the present petition is concerned, no relief can not be granted to the petitioner.

With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 17.3.2021

pks